)reA^ 


hn 


WHAT  PRICE 
PEACE? 

Frederick  J.  Libby 


ONE  CENT  A COPY 
ONE  DOLLAR  A HUNDRED 

POSTAGE  EXTRA 


Additional  copies  of  this  pamphlet  may  be  obtained  from  the 

National  Council  for  Prevention  of  War 

I 

532  Seventeenth  Street,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Issued  January,  1925 


SUMMARY  OF  ARGUMENT 


Potential  causes  of  war  confront  us  on  every  hand. 
Peace  has  not  come.  Our  military  men  tell  us  that  getting 
ready  for  war  is  the  way  to  peace.  It  is  their  duty  to 
prepare  the  nation  for  war.  This  method,  however,  will 
not  bring  peace.  It  will  only  hasten  another  world  war, 
and  that  would  fatally  weaken  our  white  civilization. 

To  possess  peace  with  justice  and  security,  we  must 
build  machinery  adequate  to  settle  all  international 
disputes  that  might  cause  war,  and  we  must  create  behind 
the  machinery  a world  opinion  so  strong  that  no  nation 
will  defy  it.  Small  national  armed  forces  theoretically  can 
supplement  world  opinion,  but  the  reliance  must  be  on 
world  opinion.  Competitive  armaments,  the  result  of 
fear  or  ambition,  must  be  progressively  abolished  by 
international  agreement.  International  understanding  and 
goodwill  must  be  consistently  cultivated  beginnipg  in  the 
schools.  The  road  to  peace  is  a long  uphill  road. 

For  machinery  we  shall  require  a court  for  our  legal 
disputes  and  a town  meeting  of  the  world  for  the  rest. 
I favor  immediate  adherence  to  the  existing  World  Court 
with  the  Hughes  reservations.  For  the  world  town  meet- 
ing, I believe  that  we  should  join  the  existing  League  of 
Nations  with  reservations  on  Articles  X and  XVI  in  order 
that  we  may  avoid  both  legal  and  moral  commitments 
to  use  either  military  or  economic  force.  These  seem  to  me 
to  be  the  first  two  steps  towards  peace. 

The  third  step  is  the  outlawry  of  war.  Since  this  will 
involve  sacrifice  of  sovereignty  in  certain  respects  for  the 
sake  of  peace,  with  a voluntary  agreement  to  submit  to 
the  proper  tribunal  all  disputes  that  threaten  war,  it 
requires  a higher  development  of  the  will  to  peace  than 
does  the  creation  of  the  Court  and  League.  It  will  fail 
if  attempted  as  a political  device  to  perpetuate  the  status 
quo.  It  can  succeed  only  when  the  nations,  and  especially 
the  great  powers,  are  willing  to  be  just,  have  a reasonable 
appreciation  of  one  another’s  problems,  and  are  actuated 
by  a fair  degree  of  goodwill. 

The  Geneva  Protocol  for  the  Pacific  Settlement  of 
International  Disputes  and  Senator  Borah’s  proposal  for 
the  outlawry  of  war  should  be  studied  together  in  the  light 
of  the  concrete  problems  to  be  solved,  especially  the 
political  and  human  problems.  I believe  that  the  pro- 
vision for  “sanctions”  to  be  automatically  applied  is 
impracticable. 

A conference  for  the  reduction  and  limitation  of  land, 
sea,  and  air  armaments  is  imperatively  needed  in  the 
interest  of  economy  and  world  peace.  No  one  knows  how 
soon  such  a conference  can  be  held  with  reasonable  assur- 
ance of  even  partial  success.  All  nations  must  participate. 

I believe  that  a conference  of  this  kind  would  now  be  more 
fruitful  if  held  in  Geneva  than  if  held  in  Washington. 

The  interim  policy  for  the  United  States  should  be  to 
avoid  increasing  armaments,  holding  “defense  days,” 
and  the  like.  Our  aggressive  and  growing  militarism  is 
bringing  us  no  added  security  and  is  engendering  fear  and 
suspicion  at  home  and  abroad.  On  the  other  hand,  as 
mighty  armaments  give  a sense  of  security  and  stability — 
albeit  a mistaken  sense — I expect  no  substantial  reduction 
by  America  alone. 


Page  two 


WHAT  PRICE  PEACE? 

By  Frederick  J.  Libby 


“PEACE!  PEACE!”  WHEN  THERE  IS 
NO  PEACE 

We  are  farther  from  peace  than  we  were  in  1922. 
The  French  occupation  of  the  Ruhr  and  the  passage 
by  Congress  of  the  Japanese  Exclusion  Act  were 
blows  at  the  very  heart  of  world  peace.  Hate  has 
been  growing  in  Europe.  Militarism  has  been 
given  a new  lease  of  life  in  Germany  and  in  Japan. 
The  question  of  race  equality  has  been  made  a 
permanently  living  issue  to  be  coupled  in  future 
years  with  the  problems  raised  by  white  domination 
over  peoples  that  want  to  be  free. 

New  Alsace  Lx)rraines — such  as  the  Polish 
Corridor — have  been  created  by  the  Versailles 
Treaty.  Religious  and  rach  antagonisms,  kept 
acute  by  the  economic  imperialism  of  the  white 
race,  stir  the  awakening  Mohammedan  world. 

Militarist  and  narrow  nationalist  groups  in 
every  country  flood  the  press  with  propaganda 
breathing  fear  or  hate.  A new  race  in  armaments 
has  started.  Our  Monroe  Doctrine,  in  view  of  the 
growing  importance  of  the  immigration  question, 
contains  dangerous  possibilities  insofar  as  it  may 
be  regarded  as  a commitment  to  go  to  war  for 
Latin- American  policies.  Taken  in  conjunction 
with  certain  acts  of  aggression  on  our  part  and  with 
the  utterances  of  our  jingoes,  which  are  reprinted 
from  the  Rio  Grande  to  Cape  Horn,  it  injects 
poison  constantly  into  our  relations  with  Latin 
America,  so  that  our  military  guarantee  of  two 
continents  brings  us  no  gratitude  but  only  suspicion 
from  our  grown-up  and  unwilling  wards. 

The  Dawes  Plan  is  a fleeting  ray  of  sunshine  in  a 
dark  and  ominous  sky.  We  are  not  drifting  into 
permanent  peace. 

NO.  SALVATION  IN  INCREASING 
PREPAREDNESS 

Our  military  men  tell  us  to  get  ready  for  war. 
This  is  their  duty.  We  are  surrounded  by  poten- 
tial causes  of  war.  In  their  optimistic  or  dis- 
ingenuous moments,  our  militarists  talk  of  “peace 
by  preparedness.”  “America  must  be  so  strong 
that  no  nation  will  dare  attack  her,”  is  a popular 
slogan. 

Preparedness  never  has  prevented  war  and  it 
never  will.  Germany  had  that  slogan.  Look  at 


Page  three 


her!  History  shows  that  preparedness  has  always 
led  to  war.  It  can  lead  nowhere  else. 

We  build;  our  rivals  build — cruisers,  airplanes, 
gas  factories,  submarines,  armies.  We  build 
more;  they  build  more.  A race  in  armaments 
starts,  and  this  always  ends  in  war. 

General  Frederick  B.  Maurice  of  the  British 
army  says:  “I  used  to  believe  that  if  you  want 
peace,  you  must  prepare  for  war;  but  I have  come 
to  see  that,  if  you  prepare  for  war  thoroughly  and 
efficiently,  you  will  get  war.” 


ANOTHER  WORLD  WAR  WOULD  FINISH  US 

Militarist  theories  predicate  winning  one’s  wars. 
No  nation  won  the  last  war.  France  is  less  secure 
than  in  1914;  England  is  less  prosperous.  All  the 
“victor”  nations  are  staggering  under  taxes  and 
armaments;  and  there  are  the  multitudinous  dead. 

Herbert  Hoover  at  Los  Angeles  on  Armistice  Day 
declared  that  another  great  war  would  be  the 
“cemetery  of  civilization.”  Winston  Churchill 
describes  it  as  the  “general  doom.”  His  article 
entitled  “Shall  We  Commit  Suicide?”  should  be 
widely  read. 

A war  of  airplanes,  poison  gas,  and  hate — a baby 
killers’  war — the  women  conscripted  and  exter- 
minated with  the  men — a city  wiped  out  at  a time — 
America’s  cities  almost  as  vulnerable  as  Europe’s, 
now  that  airships  and  submarines  carry  planes — 
such  a war  would  surely  be  the  twilight  of  the  white 
civilization.  We  should  perish  as  other  civiliza- 
tions in  the  brief  span  of  human  history  have  per- 
ished before  us. 

Consequently,  while  war  is  threatening  from 
every  quarter,  preparedness  for  war  offers  no  hope 
to  any  nation — not  even  the  hope  of  victory. 
Increasing  preparedness  can  only  hasten  the 
“general  doom.”  Our  sole  hope  of  survival  lies 
in  preparing  adequately  and  intelligently  for  peace. 


HISTORY  HAS  SHOWN  A SUCCESSFUL 
WAY  OUT 

The  way  out  of  the  perilous  chaos  into  which 
godless  and  stupid  policies  have  brought  the  world 
is  a way  that  has  proved  uniformly  successful. 
It  has  been  tried  so  far  in  cities,  states,  and  nations. 
It  worked  in  the  Maine  township  where  I grew  up, 
and  it  works  equally  well  on  a national  scale  in 
every  civilized  land  on  which  the  sun  shines. 
It  is  now  universally  practised — except  between 
nations. 


Page  four 


MACHINERY  PLUS  PUBLIC  OPINION 

We  call  it,  roughly  speaking,  the  substitution  of 
law  for  war.  To  express  it  more  accurately,  our 
present  task  is  to  build  machinery  adequate  to 
settle  all  disputes  that  might  cause  war,  and  to 
build  behind  that  machinery  a sound  world  opinion 
capable  of  bearing  very  heavy  strains. 

Machinery  unsupported  by  public  opinion  is 
dead.  On  the  other  hand,  public  opinion  without 
machinery  through  which  to  function  is  helpless. 

These  are  the  two  main  tasks.  At  the  same  time, 
armaments  must  be  reduced  by  international  con- 
ferences, war  must  be  outlawed,  and  goodwill 
must  be  cultivated.  The  development  of  goodwill 
should  be  begun  in  the  schools. 

THE  MACHINERY  ESSENTIAL 

In  Maine  we  had  both  a court  and  a town  meeting 
to  keep  us  out  of  war.  The  court  dealt  with  our 
legal  disputes  and  the  town  meeting  with  the  rest. 
Both  were  supported  by  public  opinion.  The 
strength  of  this  opinion  made  the  work  of  our  one 
policeman  light.  The  system  worked. 

In  California  in  ’49,  men  relied  on  pistols  for 
justice  and  security.  It  did  not  work.  Thugs 
could  shoot  as  straight  as  honest  men.  So  in 
California  they  shifted  from  the  war  system  to  the 
law  system  and  were  able  before  long  to  forbid  the 
carrying  of  pistols.  Obviously,  this  change  of 
method  was  wrought  without  changing  human 
nature. 

The  progress  of  civilization  has  been  charac- 
terized by  just  such  an  extension  of  the  reign  of 
law.  One  step  remains  to  be  taken.  Since  it 
works  everywhere  else,  we  should  enthrone  law 
between  nations.  As  I see  it,  the  essential  in- 
stitutions necessary  are  those  with  which  New 
Englanders  are  familiar — a court  for  the  v/orld’s 
legal  disputes  and  a town  meeting  for  the  rest. 

THE  WORLD  COURT 

A court  of  justice  has  long  been  recognized  by 
American  statesmen  as  the  cornerstone  of  world 
peace.  It  is  clear  to  anyone  who  thinks  that  some 
provision  must  be  made  for  the  settlement  of 
legal  disputes.  The  Hague  Tribunal  is  not  a court 
of  law,  but  a court  of  arbitration,  and  therefore 
cannot  perform  the  tasks  now  under  our  considera- 
tion. 

The  Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice, 
popularly  called  the  World  Court,  is  the  kind  of 
court  required.  It  has  been  accepted  by  47 
nations.  It,  too,  meets  at  The  Hague.  It  is 
largely  the  creation  of  American  genius.  Elihu 


Page  five. 


Root  is  its  father.  It  is  the  practically  universal 
judgment  of  the  peace  forces  of  America  that  our 
first  step  towards  peace  should  be  to  join  the 
existing  World  Court  and  with  the  Hughes  reser- 
vations. The  Hughes  reservations  protect  us  from 
inadvertently  joining  the  League  before  we  are 
ready.  We  accept  this  limitation.  We  will  pro- 
ceed one  step  at  a time. 

No  substitute  plan  receives  any  support  what- 
ever, and  for  excellent  reasons.  This  specific 
proposal  has  the  endorsement  of  President  Coolidge 
and  of  both  the  Republican  and  Democratic  plat- 
forms. I regard  joining  the  World  Court  with 
the  Hughes  reservations  as  this  winter’s  job 
(1924-1925).  The  Senate  has  had  the  measure 
before  it  in  committee  nearly  two  years.  Mean- 
while the  world  drifts  towards  war.  It  is  reason- 
able to  demand  speedy  action.  We  must  all  work 
to  secure  it  through  our  Senators. 

THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  WITH 
RESERVATIONS 

As  a court  can  deal  only  with  legal  disputes,  and 
as  the  most  dangerous  disputes  named  above  are 
political  and  economic  rather  than  legal,  it  is  clear 
that  the  World  Court  alone  will  not  end  war.  A 
town  meeting  of  the  world  under  some  name  is  as 
necessary  as  the  court.  This  fact  is  generally 
recognized  and  the  idea  of  a League  of  Nations  is 
nearly  everywhere  accepted. 

The  existing  League  of  Nations  I used  to  oppose 
on  the  ground  that  it  seemed  to  me  to  be  so  tied 
up  with  the  Versailles  Treaty  that  it  was  more 
likely  to  cause  war  than  to  prevent  it.  I believe  still 
that  its  coercive  features  are  impracticable.  I 
have  come  to  the  conviction,  however,  that  Amer- 
ica should  now  consider  joining  the  League  of 
Nations  with  such  reservations  on  Articles  X and 
XVI  as  will  relieve  us  from  every  legal  and  moral 
obligation  to  go  to  war  or  to  undertake  any  coercive 
economic  measures  that  might  lead  to  war.  We 
should  also  be  protected  by  reservation  from  any 
possible  construction  of  obligation  under  the 
Versailles  Treaty.  I may  add  that  my  observation 
is  that  the  genuine  opposition  to  the  League  in 
this  country  is  in  reality  opposition  to  the  commit- 
ments indicated  in  these  reservations. 

Although  the  League  is  still  in  its  formative 
period,  it  is,  I believe,  firmly  established.  Fifty- 
five  out  of  64  eligible  nations  belong  to  it.  Turkey 
and  Germany  will  probably  join  within  twelve 
months.  Then  only  Russia,  the  United  States, 
Mexico  and  four  small  nations  of  those  now  eligible 
will  remain  outside. 

Important  decisions  are  being  made  by  the 


Page  six 


League.  America  should  have  a part  in  making  all 
such  decisions,  because  they  inevitably  affect  our 
future.  The  world  is  now  a community,  and  the 
welfare  of  each  nation  is  closely  wrapped  up  with 
the  decisions  of  the  rest. 

The  League  fortunately  was  not  made  a political 
issue  of  the  recent  presidential  campaign.  Secretary 
Hughes  for  one  took  pains  to  say  that  he  regarded 
our  foreign  relations  as  not  an  issue.  Party 
politics  should  stop  at  the  3-mile  limit.  Secretary 
Hughes  was  also  careful  to  say  with  reference  to 
the  League  that  it  was  against  the  “commitments” 
of  the  Covenant  that  he  believed  America  had 
declared  herself.  I believe  that  we  should  join 
the  League  of  Nations  on  the  conditions  stated  and 
that  we  should  do  so  during  the  present  Adminis- 
tration. It  is  surely  becoming  increasingly  difficult 
for  us  to  stay  outside. 

THE  OUTLAWRY  OF  WAR 

With  court  and  town  meeting  established,  I 
believe  that  the  effectiv.e  outlawry  of  war  is  possible. 
War  cannot  be  outlawed  if  this  is  proposed  as  a 
device  to  preserve  the  present  division  of  territory 
in  Europe.  War  cannot  be  outlawed  for  the  pro- 
tection of  injustice  or  oppression  anywhere. 
Such  political  chicanery  in  the  outlawry  of  war 
would  in  the  end  meet  with  a fearful  punishment. 

The  outlawry  of  war  can  succeed  permanently, 
I think,  only  when  accompanied  by  a general 
willingness  on  the  part  of  nations  to  be  just  and 
by  such  an  appreciation  of  others’  problems  as 
will  lead'  to  a friendly  spirit  of  “give  and  take.” 
Such  jealous  nationalism  as  has  historically  ruled 
our  Senate  is  incompatible  with  it.  “Vital  in- 
terests” and  “the  national  honor”  cannot  be  made 
exceptions  for  private  treatment,  neither  can 
“domestic”  questions  that  are  not  exclusively 
domestic,  as  the  American  delegation  justly  urged 
at  the  recent  opium  convention. 

The  honest  outlawry  of  war  demands  a higher 
development  of  the  will  to  peace  and  justice  than 
has  been  observed  among  great  nations  in  the  past. 
This  is  why  it  is  the  third  rather  than  the  first  step 
to  be  taken.  Yet,  until  aggressive  war  has  been 
branded  as  a crime,  and  until  the  aggressor  has 
been  defined,  the  prevention  of  war  will  be  hap- 
hazard, and  the  growth  of  an  effective  world  opinion 
against  war  will  be  slow  and  uncertain. 

The  Geneva  Protocol  for  the  Pacific  Settlement 
of  International  Disputes  has  been  ratified  by  16 
nations  including  France.  It  deserves  study  side 
by  side  with  the  Borah  Resolution.  Personally 
I believe  that  “sanctions”  which  are  to  become 
effective  automatically  are  impracticable.  I can- 


Page  setien 


not  imagine  England  seizing  our  property  or 
blockading  us  because  our  Senate  refused  to  accept 
a League  decision. 

Wise  men  make  no  threats,  knowing  that  they 
may  not  want  to  carry  them  out  and  that  perhaps 
to  do  so  would  be  injustice  and  folly.  Events 
have  justified  the  founders  of  our  Republic  in 
giving  the  Supreme  Court  no  force  but  public 
opinion  to  support  its  decisions  as  between  states. 
The  system  has  limped  at  times,  but  it  has  always 
worked  better  than  attempted  coercion  would 
have  done. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW 

International  Law  is  in  its  infancy.  It  is  mainly 
concerned  with  procedure  in  war — a procedure  no 
longer  observed.  It  needs  to  be  extended  and 
codified.  I believe  that  this  can  best  be  done  by  a 
commission  of  the  League  of  Nations,  which  shall 
report  from  time  to  time  to  the  League  of  Nations 
Assembly.  Late  news  from  Rome  indicates  that 
this  is  being  provided  for  by  the  Council  of  the 
League. 

CONFERENCE  ON  REDUCTION 
OF  ARMAMENTS 

Both  the  League  of  Nations  and  President 
Coolidge  have  given  expression  to  the  universal 
desire  to  reduce  the  burden  of  armaments  in  the 
interest  of  economy  and  world  peace.  Armaments, 
speaking  generally,  express  a nation’s  fears  or  the 
ambitions  of  its  controlling  classes.  Reduction  of 
armaments  will  follow  increasing  world  security  and 
still  more  extensively  an  increasing  sense  of  security, 
which  is  a very  different  matter.  We  are  used  to 
our  armaments  as  we  are  used  to  locking  our  doors 
at  night.  Neither  actually  gives  security,  although 
we  have  been  brought  up  to  think  both  do.  I have 
shown  above  that  armaments  cannot  give  security 
from  another  world  war,  and  that  is  the  only 
security  that  would  be  worth  having. 

Increase  of  armaments  increases  the  general 
sense  of  insecurity.  Therefore,  while  waiting  for 
another  conference  on  the  limitation  of  armaments, 
we  should  not  hold  “defense  days’’  nor  competi- 
tively multiply  our  cruisers,  submarines,  and  other 
arms.  President  Coolidge  is  right  in  “standing 
pat’’  on  the  vast  sum  of  $550,000,000  as  enough 
for  war  preparation  for  the  year  1926. 

On  the  other  hand,  drastic  reduction  of  arma- 
ments, except  by  international  agreement,  is 
psychologically  impracticable  for  us  in  the  present 
state  of  things.  Hence  another  conference  for  the 
reduction  and  limitation  of  land,  sea,  and  air 
forces  is  necessary.  To  be  fruitful,  it  must  include 


Page  eighl 


all  nations.  France  cannot  disarm  unless  Russia 
does.  Although  it  might  seem  that  Washington 
would  in  some  respects  offer  the  best  atmosphere 
for  such  a conference,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
France  has  not  yet  ratified  some  of  the  important 
treaties  adopted  here  three  years  ago  (1921). 
Delegates  achieve  nothing  permanent  if  they  go 
beyond  public  sentiment  at  home.  Consequently, 
as  the  League  of  Nations  is  considering  such  a 
conference,  I believe  it  might  be  well  for  it  to 
meet  in  Geneva.  There  would,  perhaps,  be 
greater  probability  that  its  decisions  would  be 
accepted  by  the  powers  represented. 

NO  SALVATION  IN  MACHINERY 

Machinery  will  not  save  the  world.  It  is  dead 
by  itself.  When  legislation  gets  too  far  ahead  of 
public  opinion,  we  have  trouble  in  enforcing  our 
laws.  Similarly  the  weakness  of  the  League  of 
Nations  has  been  mainly  the  weakness  of  the 
public  opinion  behind  the  League.  It  will  be  re- 
membered that  the  League  was  set  up  at  a time 
when  to  a considerable  degree  the  world  was 
skeptical  of  its  practicability. 

Press  opinion  in  France  scoffed  at  “Wilson’s 
ideology.”  Lloyd  George  exacted  payment  for 
his  support.  Our  Senate  rejected  the  League 
through  the  efforts  of  a determined  minority  of 
doubters.  Puny  and  unwelcome,  it  lived  by  the 
faith  of  a few  men  until  Italy  last  year,  by  defying 
it,  proved  to  the  small  nations  its  vital  worth. 

Now  the  terrors  of  the  future  have  made  the 
League  the  cornerstone  of  the  foreign  policy  of 
several  states  including  France.  It  is  flouted 
still  by  the  nationalists  of  every  country  when  it 
stands  in  their  way;  but  even  they  do  not  dare  try 
to  destroy  it.  Without  it  no  one  sees  any  hope 
ahead — nothing  but  universal  warfare  and  whole- 
sale extermination  until  the  end. 

GROWING  PUBLIC  OPINION 
BEHIND  LEAGUE 

The  change,  be  it  noted,  has  been  in  public 
opinion.  The  small  nations  saw  in  the  attack  on 
Greece  the  fact  that  their  existence  rests  with  the 
League.  French  liberals  perceived  that  they 
could  reduce  the  burden  of  armaments  and  achieve 
security  only  through  the  League.  Statesmen, 
leaders  of  thought  everjrwhere,  discovered  that  they 
were  leaning  upon  it  more  and  more  heavily  as  they 
looked  ahead  into  the  dark. 

Winston  Churchill,  sincere  imperialist  though  he 
be,  writes:  “It  is  through  the  League  of  Nations 
alone  that  the  path  to  safety  and  salvation  can  be 
found,  Tp  sustain  and  aid  the  League  of  Nations  is 


Page  nine 


the  duty  of  all.'*  His  government  failed  to  live 
up  to  his  wise  admonition  in  the  recent  crisis  in 
Egypt,  but  it  is  something  that  he  should  have 
recognized  the  obligation  in  principle.  The  League 
will  progressively  destroy  imperialism,  one  may 
hope. 

BUILDING  WORLD  OPINION 

We  have  only  to  read  our  morning  paper  thought- 
fully to  become  aware  that  the  sound  world 
opinion  required  to  make  the  new  machinery  of 
justice  effective  will  not  come  of  itself.  It  must 
be  built  by  the  conscious  and  purposeful  coopera- 
tion of  governments  and  of  all  good  citizens. 

ENGLAND  AND  EGYPT 

England’s  conservative  government  has  just 
thrown  away  a precious  opportunity  of  this  kind 
in  refusing  to  submit  to  the  League  her  quarrel 
with  Egypt  and  resorting  to  the  coercive  policy 
of  the  old  diplomacy,  seizing  the  opportunity  of  a 
murder  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  empire. 

The  thirst  for  liberty  that  is  stirring  North 
Africa,  the  Near  East,  and  India  cannot  be  quenched 
by  repression.  “Only  a few  agitators  are  to  blame 
for  this  unrest,”  say  the  old-school  imperialists. 
That  is  what  they  said  with  some  justice  of  the 
American  Colonies  once.  England  would  have 
been  wiser  to  strengthen  the  League  now  against 
the  difficult  days  that  everyone  can  see  ahead  of 
the  British  Empire. 

It  is  by  such  voluntary  submission  of  important 
matters  to  the  Court  and  League  by  governments 
strong  enough  to  evade  doing  so  that  in  the  last 
instance  our  world  opinion  must  be  built. 

A TASK  FOR  ALL  GOOD  CITIZENS 

Despite  two  glaring  instances  of  Congressional 
insularity  that  are  at  present  in  our  minds — 
passage  of  the  Japanese  Exclusion  Act  and  two 
years’  delay  in  taking  up  the  World  Court — in 
the  long  run  and  haltingly  a democratic  govern- 
ment obeys  the  people’s  will.  If  we  want  inter- 
national law  and  order  in  place  of  war  and  chaos, 
we  must  say  so  and  keep  saying  so. 

How  is  public  opinion  created?  How  was  Mr. 
Coolidge  elected  president?  Talk,  talk,  talk  and 
talk,  talk,  talk.  Not,  as  it  happens  in  this  in- 
stance, by  Mr.  Coolidge  but  by  those  who  wanted 
him  for  president.  It  was  talk  in  the  press  and 
talk  from  the  soapbox  and  talk  in  the  circles  in 
which  one  moved,  talk  with  convincing  earnestness, 
talk  with  arguments  that  reached  down  to  the 
motives  on  which  men  really  act. 

Similarly  in  furthering  the  only  policy  that  can 


Page  ten 


save  our  country  and  our  civilization  from  being 
ruined  by  another  war,  we  must  talk,  talk,  talk  and 
talk,  talk,  talk — in  the  press,  from  the  pulpit, 
in  the  schoolroom,  in  books,  from  the  billboards, 
in  public  meetings,  and  through  the  programs  of 
club  and  lodge  and  grange.  We  must  work  as 
men  in  haste,  remembering  that  we  are  sure  only 
of  this  “period  of  exhaustion,”  in  which  to  build 
machinery  and  world  opinion,  both  strong 
enough  to  bear  incredible  strain.  It  will  be  only 
as  by  the  skin  of  our  teeth  that  the  world  will  get 
by  some  of  the  danger  corners  that  we  all  can  see 
must  be  passed. 

Why  America  particularly?  Because  what  is 
whispered  in  America  today  echoes  and  re-echoes 
around  the  world. 

MUST  BEGIN  IN  THE  SCHOOLS 

All  movements  that  succeed  start  in  the  schools. 
It  is  in  the  schools  of  the  world  that  the  peace 
movement  will  succeed  or  fail.  If  the  old  style 
militant  nationalism  continues  to  be  taught  there — ■ 
the  arrogance,  the  hate  of  past  days — there  is  no 
hope. 

Hate  is  being  taught  now  in  the  schools  of  every 
land  and  sometimes  it  is  called  patriotism.  For 
myself,  I learned  to  love  France  and  to  hate 
England  as  a schoolboy,  through  the  lessons  of 
the  Revolutionary  War.  These  lessons  could  have 
been  taught  without  breeding  hate,  I think;  but 
they  weren’t. 

South  and  North  have  not  yet  agreed  on  a his- 
tory of  the  United  States.  Both  are  handing  down 
from  generation  to  generation  the  animosities  of 
the  Civil  War  by  using  different  textbooks  with 
utterly  different  viewpoints.  They  call  this  loy- 
alty. It  is  loyalty  to  the  past  but  not  to  the 
future.  The  future  demands  that  the  glorification 
of  war  with  its  hatreds  shall  cease. 

CULTIVATE  AND  TEACH  GOODWILL 

Secretary  Hughes,  in  the  course  of  his  famous 
speech,  May  15,  which,  whether  intentionally  or 
not,  cut  the  ground  from  under  “Defense  Day,” 
said,  “There  is  only  one  avenue  to  peace.  That  is 
in  the  settlement  of  actual  differences  and  the 
removal  of  ill  will.  All  else  is  talk,  form,  and 
pretense.” 

I After  speaking  of  the  settlement  of  differences 
through  “institutions  of  justice,”  he  went  on  as  fol- 
lows; “Between  friends  any  difficulty  can  be  settled. 
There  is  no  substitute  for  goodwill.  There  is  no 
mechanism  of  intercourse  that  can  dispense  with 
it.” 

I am  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  Secretary 
Hughes’  conclusion.  We  must  be  better  men  if  our 


Page  eleven 


race  is  to  survive.  A civilization  shot  through 
with  hate  cannot  continue  long  after  it  is  fully 
equipped  with  poison  gas  and  airplanes.  Even 
for  self-preservation  we  must  cultivate  goodwill — 
goodwill  between  classes  and  religions  and  nations 
and  races. 

We  must  subdue  in  our  own  hearts  the  swift’y 
rising  prejudice  by  nursing,  often  by  an  effort  of 
the  will,  the  kindly  thought  that  follows  tardily. 
We  must  seek  to  know  and  understand  those  we 
hate;  for  then,  as  Charles  Lamb  discovered,  we 
cannot  hate  them.  Cooperation  must  replace 
isolation;  progressive  world  organization  must 
replace  international  anarchy;  and,  above  all, 
the  spirit  of  the  team  must  replace  “grandstand 
playing”  and  national  egotism. 

IT  WILL  WORK 

The  success  of  our  national  experiments  in  “au- 
dacious friendliness” — ^returning  the  Boxer  indem- 
nity to  China,  feeding  the  children  of  Europe,  aiding 
stricken  Japan;  the  success  of  Ramsay  Mac- 
Donald’s pursuit  of  the  same  policy,  which  changed 
the  atmosphere  of  Europe  markedly  for  the 
better  in  six  months;  the  success  of  Herriot  in  his 
policy  of  “rapprochement”  with  Germany,  follow- 
ing Poincare’s  ghastly  failure  with  coercion — 
all  this  goes  to  show  that  international  relations 
are  but  human  problems  and  that  the  spirit  that 
“removes”  our  personal  “mountains”  will  be 
similarly  triumphant  between  nations.  Our 
realists  are  going  to  discover  some  day  to  their 
astonishment  that  the  “practical”  policy  they  are 
seeking,  the  policy  that  will  bring  security  with 
justice  and  peace,  is  this  very  policy  of  audacious 
friendliness  functioning  through  appropriate  ma- 
chinery. We  can  climb  up  to  peace  in  no  other  way. 


Model  Printing  Company,  Washington 


Page  twelve 


